Author
Topic: Is space really empty? (Read 3223 times)

I am new here and I would like to know a few basic things which I cannot find answer.

I was taught that space is just an empty space with stars galaxies and space dust.And of course dark mater.

I will make a few statements and will discuss my opinion.

-- Point 1 --Space is not empty

I think that our space is in a pool of energy. This energy is not detected by our science because of all the noise of atoms and particles.

Reasoning behind this is gravity and constant energy that is holding atoms together.

Gravity ; I was imagining two empty boxes with steel ball baring inside them. Boxes are prepared so thatno photon can get through. Then they are put in the space where there shouldnt be anything. Now, these empty boxes are vacuumed futher to ensure that boxes are absolutely empty. Then monitor whether these two maxes in the space pull each other due to act of gravity. From what i gather, most will immediate answer that two boxes will indeed pull each other.So how does the gravity work here where there was nothing transfering energy across.

Constant energy ; What I have learned is that, when a steel ball baring is cooled to absolute 0 kelvin,1. Atoms movement come to a stop2. Atoms movement is restored when left to ambient temperature to heat it up againFrom this I can conclude that what we call temperature has a very tight relationship with how Atoms work. However, even at absolute 0 kelvin, Atoms structure is not lost (or perhaps not yet known can be verified as we cannot cool to absolute 0) If at absolute 0, Atoms movement stops and electrons fall into the core, it would be something else when heated again. Also At such temperature, if even the energy that is driving electron comes to arest, then how is gravity going to be affected? If we experiment this on a heavy planet, would Atoms stick to each other when compressed?

-- Point 2 --There is no way we can make such emptiness

When two boxes are connected to a machine that is very good at creating empty space, it is still not possible to create a total vacuum box because how atoms are structured. The box is made of Atoms and there will be plenty of space in between them to let something through. So a total emptiness is not possible.

-- Point 3 --Elementary particles are not smallest

Thinking about the structure of Atom, many have said that the atoms dont implode because of the energy that particles are generating. So how can something so small generate something that can push each other? Are these small particles like photon have some sort of generator inside them? I think that these particles are not smallest and their mass is not 0.

-- Point 4 --Temperature that we know is behind all these.

A few things I have organised.

Temperature is infrared light

Infrared light is energy

Light is photon

Photon has wave property as well as being particle

Photons spin at a constant rate generating wave like property

Photons are being pushed by energy which is able to accerate it to C instantly

Photons remain travelling at C and dont slow down

In all, an energy that is surrounding us all the time is keeping things together.

This energy is able to :

keep electrons spin and orbit nucleus

provide medium for gravity to work

Is there something I am totally mistaken? It just seems so wong that space is empty.

Would it kill us if it were? If there was a thing like a perfect equivalent vacuum, no gravity, then that would consist of one frame of reference, in terms of relativity. If you define gravity to what keeps a universe 'together', then there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum existing without gravity. Even if unmeasurable. And so a flat space must be assumed to contain a property of 'gravity'. Now you need to decide if 'gravity' is a force, is it?

Do you want a vacuum to be a universal background, on which 'forces' as EM and 'gravity' plays out? Or do you think the 'background' is the universe, meaning that there is no background at all.Would then 'gravity' be the canvas for a universe.

Thanks for the reply but I am having hard time understanding your reply and having hard time deciding what to write again.My friend tells me, I simply asked too many question in one thread. I will break them into a few different threads.

Hi micron98. Your friend is on the right track. I think that what you need is fewer questions in one post. With an opening salvo like yours, it's very easy for us simple folk to think "What?" then to go away to think about it, and forget to come back.

The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors
and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators,
sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.